- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner had approached this court for quashing of Memo No. 492 dated 7th March 2005 (Annexure-7) whereby the no objection certificate granted by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi (Respondent No. 2) dated 9th of September 2003 (Annexure-) for establishing petrol pump was cancelled. According to the petitioner, he applied for opening of retail outlet at Murhu for sale of Motor Spirit / High Speed Diesel and other lubricants under the IBP Company Ltd. For the aforesaid purpose, no objection certificate was required to be issued by the district administration. On the petitioner's application for allotment of retail outlet, the IBP Company Ltd sought for no objection certificate in respect of the land falling under Khata No. 2 Plot No. 130 (Part) of Mouza-Goratoli and after due inquiry by the Sub Divisional Officer, Khunti, the said no objection certificate was granted in respect of the said land vide Memo No. 2545(ii) dated 9th of September 2003 issued under the signature of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. By referring to the recommendation of the Sub Divisional Officer, Khunti, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that for stretch of 80 kms between Khunti-Chakradharpur at the relevant point of time when no objection certificate was issued, no retail outlet was existing. It is submitted that the report of the Sub Divisional Officer, Khunti duly records the details of the land vide Annexure-3 while making his recommendation on 20th February 2003 and recommended for issuance of no objection certificate. The petitioner was issued letters of intent for retail outlet dealership on 25th November 2003 issued by the IBP Company Ltd which is annexed as Annexure-5. The said letter records that the petitioner has plot of land situate in Revenue Survey No. 02 measuring 1955 sq. mtrs, equals to 0.60 acres as per the respondents, in village Soratoli, P.S. Murhu in District Ranchi. The petitioner thereafter took steps to establish the retail outlet and started functioning also. However, he has been taken by surprise by the impugned order dated 7th March 2005 issued under the signature of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi cancelling the no objection certificate dated 9th September 2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the impugned order, submits that in the first place, the order of cancellation has been issued without any show-cause or notice in violation of principles of natural justice. Secondly, it has been submitted that the reference of Title Suit No. 5 of 1997 made in the impugned order, which was instituted by certain person against host of defendants totalling 72 persons including the petitioner and the Divisional Manager, IBP Company Ltd., did not debar the petitioner from seeking no objection certificate in respect of the plot in question which was sold in his favour by a registered sale deed. It is further submitted that the learned court had refused to grant any injunction to the plaintiffs who also numbered seven in the said suit which was instituted for declaration of right, title and interest over the property in the suit. The said suit have been instituted in respect of the land of several persons and the petitioner had only portion of the land sold to him validly by the registered sale deed for an area of 0.60 acres. However, respondents did not think it proper to issue show-cause / notice to the petitioner to allow him to defend himself. Being aggrieved with the impugned order, the petitioner has approached this court. It is further submitted that this court, on being prima facie satisfied on the first date of admission, granted interim relief to the petitioner by staying the operation of the impugned order by virtue of which he is continuing to operate the retail outlet. The petitioner has thereafter brought on record the subsequent development by way of rejoinder to the counter affidavit in which it has been stated that the said Title Suit No. 5 of 1997 / T.A. No. 96 of 2006 has been dismissed by the court of learned Munsif, Khunti by order dated 15th of June of 2009, which has been brought on record as Annexure-11 annexed to the said rejoinder. It is submitted that after the dismissal of the said suit, in any case, the very basis of issuance of the impugned order does not survive which otherwise also suffers from violation of principles of natural justice.
(3.) RESPONDENTS have appeared and filed their counter affidavit as also counter to the rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner. Respondents have supported their stand by submitting that the factum of the pendency of the title suit was not brought to the knowledge of the official respondents by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that immediately after issuance of no objection certificate, a complaint was received from certain quarters on the basis of which inquiry was held and the impugned order was passed. Learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the provisions of section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act to submit that the transaction of the petitioner suffers from lis pendence. However, counsel for the respondents does not dispute the fact that the impugned order was issued without any show-cause / notice to the petitioner.;